This article pretty much sums it up. I wish we would have just tanked years ago because post lockout high draft talent has been incredible. New York fans know their teams and what it takes to win so I don't think this belief that we're impatient is true, as the article suggests. Thoughts?

I personally don't think many would've liked a tank, even if they say they would.

Personally me because I absolutely despise the teams that have tanked for talent simply because it's such a cheap cop out. Look at the Wings- smart scouting has kept them as a force in the league even though they've never drafted that high in recent history. Now we have teams like the Penguins and the Blackhawks who are suddenly good because they tanked. Oh well, what's done is done.

Secondly, I don't think alot of us would've been able to tolerate our team playing absolutely terribly on purpose for years. Look at how many people rip on our team when we're not playing in a way that resembles a tank at all. To play that bad, and not have a connection with the team like I do now so to speak (watching Staal and the pack line mature), It would've sucked.

how many times should dubinsky have been traded acording to people here?

what about callahan?

before the last few games (and probably still) how many people had given up on grachev?

sauer would never be an NHL defenseman acorind to a lot of poeople

tremdous amount of people already disapointed in MZA

im not saying that im not guilty of this, cause i am, im just saying that we are indeed an impatient fan base as a whole

if we had tanked and grabbed a top pick, the kid would be a "bust" or "let down" if he didnt come out of the gate like stamkos and the like, and peolple would still be calling for sather's head, but for terrible drafting instead of FA signings

It's the path of least resistance to point to the fan base and say "They are impatient, they woun't sit buy for rebuild" when they fact of the matter is that it's the advertisers that they stand to lose should the team move in a direction that would constitute rebuilding.

With no "stars" to market, they stand to lose millions of ad revenue. As the above article mentions, fans will pack the arena, but advertisers may not.

It's not the fan-base, it's not the media, it's the revenue lost that is preventing a true and legit rebuild.

The Jets went 1-15 one year, Have been cellar dwellars numerous times. Giants had that 4-12 year before Manning. The Knicks have been in the tank for a decade now. the thought that NY fans would never tolerate a loser is dumb. The only worry would be the franchise folding. Are the Knicks celebrated in the canyon of heroes? Hell no but the franchise isn't folding even after all this time. Although the Mets are floundering but they've collapsed in historical fashion and the whole organization top to bottom has been a circus so the effects aren't releagted solely to play on the field.

Hell look att the ISLES! After years of 1 overall's and cellar dwelling and semi inept ownership and stadium issues they're finally on the respirator but still kicking. And that's just a LI team not a NY team. Really the only franchise whose fans gave up on it was Pitt. They didn't even have a 54 year championship drought and they gave up after a few bad years.

If the Rangers had two or 3 years of bottom 5 they'd be perfectly fine and I think most people realize that. but there's that prevailing thought it'd be a catastrophic acopaclyptic event if a NY team tanked for some unknown reason.

It's the path of least resistance to point to the fan base and say "They are impatient, they woun't sit buy for rebuild" when they fact of the matter is that it's the advertisers that they stand to lose should the team move in a direction that would constitute rebuilding.

With no "stars" to market, they stand to lose millions of ad revenue. As the above article mentions, fans will pack the arena, but advertisers may not.

It's not the fan-base, it's not the media, it's the revenue lost that is preventing a true and legit rebuild.

Or you could just recoup those losses (and much more) once the rebuild is over, you have a couple of legit homegrown superstars, and your team is a perennial contender for longer than it took to rebuild.

how many times should dubinsky have been traded acording to people here?

what about callahan?

before the last few games (and probably still) how many people had given up on grachev?

sauer would never be an NHL defenseman acorind to a lot of poeople

tremdous amount of people already disapointed in MZA

im not saying that im not guilty of this, cause i am, im just saying that we are indeed an impatient fan base as a whole

if we had tanked and grabbed a top pick, the kid would be a "bust" or "let down" if he didnt come out of the gate like stamkos and the like, and peolple would still be calling for sather's head, but for terrible drafting instead of FA signings

Pretty much this. Look no further than the Del Zotto bashing thread, or the classic "You Don't win with players like Anisimov" thread from the early summer.

Pretty much this. Look no further than the Del Zotto bashing thread, or the classic "You Don't win with players like Anisimov" thread from the early summer.

I definitely cursed him out and suggested he needs to be in the stands selling hot dogs while watching real defense get played by some other team but that was at the TV in anger immediately after a bad fail keep in and giveaway led to a goal. Unfrotunately some people instead of yelling at the TV took out their anger here on the boards and it's emotion coming out with a few. I was this close to calling him Blow Zotto the new Blowzival haha. It will be dissappointing if he continues to make huge gaffes like that and doesn't start to improve the scoring a bit more. But I am willing to believe that he may not really hit his stride a s a pro until he's 23 which is another entire season away.

You always hope these guys will just improve like that as Soph's but sometimes you gotta wait 2, 3 or 4 years.

You hope a Sauer was ready two years ago but the guy looks good now and that's all that matters in the end. Does he get there eventually? Let's hope.

And some people just flat out play arm chair GM (Artie thread, trade DUbs thread.)

Are you kidding? Our fans absolutely are impatient. How many threads this year have been dedicated to the idea of trading picks and prospects for Brad Richards? How many years in a row since the lockout have we had at least one thread dedicated to getting Forsberg? How many people would have traded Dubinsky and/or Callahan by now? How many people wanted to throw money at Kovalchuk, Volchenkov, Komisarek, make a trade for Heatley, sign Marleau, etc?

How many people last year said they would rather take the "anything can happen approach" with an 8th seed than get a top draft pick?

Are you kidding? Our fans absolutely are impatient. How many threads this year have been dedicated to the idea of trading picks and prospects for Brad Richards? How many years in a row since the lockout have we had at least one thread dedicated to getting Forsberg? How many people would have traded Dubinsky and/or Callahan by now? How many people wanted to throw money at Kovalchuk, Volchenkov, Komisarek, make a trade for Heatley, sign Marleau, etc?

How many people last year said they would rather take the "anything can happen approach" with an 8th seed than get a top draft pick?

Don't kid yourself. Our fanbase is unbelievably impatient.

No doubt, but fans would still buy tickets. If the team is in a bad way both on the ice and in pipeline, better to knock it all down. Look at the teams before the lockout. Would fans really have griped any more with a young team performing like crap than they did with what a roster full of ex-stars performing like crap?

I personally don't think many would've liked a tank, even if they say they would.

Personally me because I absolutely despise the teams that have tanked for talent simply because it's such a cheap cop out. Look at the Wings- smart scouting has kept them as a force in the league even though they've never drafted that high in recent history. Now we have teams like the Penguins and the Blackhawks who are suddenly good because they tanked. Oh well, what's done is done.

Secondly, I don't think alot of us would've been able to tolerate our team playing absolutely terribly on purpose for years. Look at how many people rip on our team when we're not playing in a way that resembles a tank at all. To play that bad, and not have a connection with the team like I do now so to speak (watching Staal and the pack line mature), It would've sucked.

I know that people toss around the word "Tank" like teams actually lose on purpose, but I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that any team truly tanked.

Granted, there may be questionable moves that make it seem so, but Sather has been making questionable moves for 10 years now in an attempt to win.

The fact is that not signing top UFA's is not tanking. Not trading away youth for former MVP's that come with car loads of baggage is not tanking. Not trading for someone with an 11 million dollar annual salary is not tanking.

The Rangers had EVERY opportunity build the right way. They didn't have to trade for Jagr even if it was a sweet-heart deal.

They didn't have to get Lindros. That was Sather's first big move. Remember "Mouse or a Lion"

The fact is that Neil Smith had the right idea back in 99. He signed a decent player in Theo Fleury, some role players in Lefebvre, Quintal, McLean, Kamensky and Taylor and proclaimed that these players (4 year deal was the max length) were here for the sole purpose of bridging a gap for when the youngsters were going to take over.

They had every opportunity to "rebuild" then, but Dolan saw it other wise and less than 18 months after Sather got hired, he traded for Lindros and started this BS merry-go-round the medicore tree.

The time was right for this franchise to rebuild back in 99.

Whether Neil Smith was the right guy to do it is not relevant.

Not going after every big name on the market would not have constituted a tank job. Not trading for guys like Lindros and Bure and Jagr would not have constituted a tank job.

Even now with what looks to be a promising core of solid players, we have to hope that we get a player that can be dominant offensively before we can truly compete. I don't see one of those in the system. No, I'm not talking about a Sid or an AO or a Malkin or a Thornton, but do we have a Nik Backstrom in the system? How about a Marian Hossa? Or a Ryan Getzlaf?

I don't know if we do or don't, but I do know that the route that this team took back before the 2000 draft and have been taking has not panned out so well. And recent drafts aside, I don't trust the point man running the Org. to lead us back to where we need to be.

I know that people toss around the word "Tank" like teams actually lose on purpose, but I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that any team truly tanked.

I want to comment on this one statement..."tanking" generally does not refer to teams blowing games on purpose (i.e. chicago black sox/world series)

What tanking infers is that management will put together a team that does not and cannot compete, no matter how hard they try (i.e. islanders for a few years)

Garth snow, and im not ragging on him, blew whatever hope that team had, put essentially an ahl product out on the ice, that would almost CERTAINLY guarantee a top 5 pick, in addition, any FA veterans that were signed, were almost all on one year deals which could be dealt at the deadline for EVEN MORE picks

Tanking refers to managements current decision as part of a long time plan, not throwing away games for free.

Tanking certainly happens and will continue to, until teams stop being rewarded for putting awful products on the ice.

I know that people toss around the word "Tank" like teams actually lose on purpose, but I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that any team truly tanked.

Granted, there may be questionable moves that make it seem so, but Sather has been making questionable moves for 10 years now in an attempt to win.

The fact is that not signing top UFA's is not tanking. Not trading away youth for former MVP's that come with car loads of baggage is not tanking. Not trading for someone with an 11 million dollar annual salary is not tanking.

The Rangers had EVERY opportunity build the right way. They didn't have to trade for Jagr even if it was a sweet-heart deal.

They didn't have to get Lindros. That was Sather's first big move. Remember "Mouse or a Lion"

The fact is that Neil Smith had the right idea back in 99. He signed a decent player in Theo Fleury, some role players in Lefebvre, Quintal, McLean, Kamensky and Taylor and proclaimed that these players (4 year deal was the max length) were here for the sole purpose of bridging a gap for when the youngsters were going to take over.

They had every opportunity to "rebuild" then, but Dolan saw it other wise and less than 18 months after Sather got hired, he traded for Lindros and started this BS merry-go-round the medicore tree.

The time was right for this franchise to rebuild back in 99.

Whether Neil Smith was the right guy to do it is not relevant.

Not going after every big name on the market would not have constituted a tank job. Not trading for guys like Lindros and Bure and Jagr would not have constituted a tank job.

Even now with what looks to be a promising core of solid players, we have to hope that we get a player that can be dominant offensively before we can truly compete. I don't see one of those in the system. No, I'm not talking about a Sid or an AO or a Malkin or a Thornton, but do we have a Nik Backstrom in the system? How about a Marian Hossa? Or a Ryan Getzlaf?

I don't know if we do or don't, but I do know that the route that this team took back before the 2000 draft and have been taking has not panned out so well. And recent drafts aside, I don't trust the point man running the Org. to lead us back to where we need to be.

You had me up until the bolded. Smith did pretty much everything wrong. He waited far, far too long to start the rebuild. He picked a terrible draft to rebuild with. He drafted poorly. And then instead of letting the team suck he tried to force it back into the playoffs with crappy players like the ones he signed. The Rangers had traded their 1st rounder in 2000, I am pretty sure Smith expected the Rangers back in the playoffs. Smith believed Malhotra, Lundmark and Brendl would be the core of the team in the future. Yikes.

If you want to rebuild, part of that is playing young players (even if you do not have many quality ones, which the Rangers did not) and losing with them. Some of them might take the opportunity and run with it and in any case you end up with a high draft pick.

One could easily argue that they are rebuilding right now. Sure we have some highly paid vets, but most of our team's effective players are under 25 and from our minor league system. I think people are confused on what a rebuild constitutes. Sure, you can tear it apart and get top draft picks, but that's not a necessary part of a rebuild. You can rebuild by adding a core of prospects to a group of veterans.

I know that people toss around the word "Tank" like teams actually lose on purpose, but I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that any team truly tanked.

Granted, there may be questionable moves that make it seem so, but Sather has been making questionable moves for 10 years now in an attempt to win.

The fact is that not signing top UFA's is not tanking. Not trading away youth for former MVP's that come with car loads of baggage is not tanking. Not trading for someone with an 11 million dollar annual salary is not tanking.

The Rangers had EVERY opportunity build the right way. They didn't have to trade for Jagr even if it was a sweet-heart deal.

They didn't have to get Lindros. That was Sather's first big move. Remember "Mouse or a Lion"

The fact is that Neil Smith had the right idea back in 99. He signed a decent player in Theo Fleury, some role players in Lefebvre, Quintal, McLean, Kamensky and Taylor and proclaimed that these players (4 year deal was the max length) were here for the sole purpose of bridging a gap for when the youngsters were going to take over.

They had every opportunity to "rebuild" then, but Dolan saw it other wise and less than 18 months after Sather got hired, he traded for Lindros and started this BS merry-go-round the medicore tree.

The time was right for this franchise to rebuild back in 99.

Whether Neil Smith was the right guy to do it is not relevant.

Not going after every big name on the market would not have constituted a tank job. Not trading for guys like Lindros and Bure and Jagr would not have constituted a tank job.

Even now with what looks to be a promising core of solid players, we have to hope that we get a player that can be dominant offensively before we can truly compete. I don't see one of those in the system. No, I'm not talking about a Sid or an AO or a Malkin or a Thornton, but do we have a Nik Backstrom in the system? How about a Marian Hossa? Or a Ryan Getzlaf?

I don't know if we do or don't, but I do know that the route that this team took back before the 2000 draft and have been taking has not panned out so well. And recent drafts aside, I don't trust the point man running the Org. to lead us back to where we need to be.

Excellent post, we've agreed on this for many years. We were in PRIME spot to rebuild the team coming off the 90's. the key for me always will be this - we just should have played the cards we had, NO TANKING, but playing the pieces we had without going overboard on FA's and trades. That's what most teams did - Devils, Wings, Stars, etc. All ended up with healthy systems and multiple Cup finals.

Just play the cards you're dealt until you can afford to take big risks, we took big risks with no backup in case it imploded, which the team did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McRanger

You had me up until the bolded. Smith did pretty much everything wrong. He waited far, far too long to start the rebuild. He picked a terrible draft to rebuild with. He drafted poorly. And then instead of letting the team suck he tried to force it back into the playoffs with crappy players like the ones he signed. The Rangers had traded their 1st rounder in 2000, I am pretty sure Smith expected the Rangers back in the playoffs. Smith believed Malhotra, Lundmark and Brendl would be the core of the team in the future. Yikes.

If you want to rebuild, part of that is playing young players (even if you do not have many quality ones, which the Rangers did not) and losing with them. Some of them might take the opportunity and run with it and in any case you end up with a high draft pick.

You may not agree with it, but Smith wanted to get Gretz one last shot at a winner. Can't blame him for catering to the leagues greatest player of that generation. So yeah, we should've started the rebuild after '97, but thats really hindsight kinda stuff.

And no one going into the 99 draft thought it was going to be horrible, quite the contrary. Experts and non experts agreed it was one of the most promising drafts in years.

A NY team can definitely rebuild, so long as they make it clear and obvious that they are going that route, then build and commit to a solid plan to get there. If you go the route of the Mets and talk about building a culture based on young talent but then jettison that talent at the first sign of struggle in favor of overpriced vets, THAT'S when the fans get pissed.

One could easily argue that they are rebuilding right now. Sure we have some highly paid vets, but most of our team's effective players are under 25 and from our minor league system. I think people are confused on what a rebuild constitutes. Sure, you can tear it apart and get top draft picks, but that's not a necessary part of a rebuild. You can rebuild by adding a core of prospects to a group of veterans.

You certainly can do that, but IMO I think it should be the other way around. Develop a young core of guys then fill in some holes with FA whether they be big name guys like Gaborik or Kovalchuk or just role players like Fedatenko.

Once the roster looked like this (give or take a few guys): Dubi, Anisimov, Cally, Stepan, Grachev, Kreider, Staal, DZ, Girardi, Sauer, McD, Lundqvist is when we should have started adding free agents.

The fans are shortsighted. In the cap increase thread,it's lets go out and sign free agents. They bash Sather for signing free agents and then propose signing Pitkanens and other "talented" players. Lets go trade for some other teams overpriced and underachieving malcontent. When a talented player bounces around from team to team,something is wrong. However,lets bring him to NY. He'll be different here.

Can you imagine the reaction if Frolov had more than a 1 year $3 million contract?

You certainly can do that, but IMO I think it should be the other way around. Develop a young core of guys then fill in some holes with FA whether they be big name guys like Gaborik or Kovalchuk or just role players like Fedatenko.

Once the roster looked like this (give or take a few guys): Dubi, Anisimov, Cally, Stepan, Grachev, Kreider, Staal, DZ, Girardi, Sauer, McD, Lundqvist is when we should have started adding free agents.

It works both ways, no doubt. Once Drury and Rozsival are out, thats exactly what will happen. We didn't have youth to add veterans to when Drury and the others signed. It was a patch work FA team. The Rangers are being rebuilt, whether you want to call it that or not.

Every year we are having young prospects develop and take prominent roles on this team.

It really began with Staal and, then Callahan and Dubinsky and now Anisimov has become a huge part of our success. Next year, hopefully Grachev and Stepan will become as success as the others have and then the likes of McDonagh and Kreider will step in as rookies.

I personally would rather have tanked then dealt with the mediocrity that was the Rangers pre-Lockout

The beauty of that time was that we didn't have to tank, we had a very bad team to begin with, just play those bad signings and mediocre draft picks and we would've been in the mix to get Malkin, Ovechkin, Crosby, Toews, etc - thats the real depressing part for me, not the actual years of bad hockey, but the fact we had very little to show for it cause we had Bure/Lindros/Nedved to make sure we didn't suck enough. Most fans I knew thought these players would help the team, but they were not saviors that could turn **** into gold